It's sad that it has to come to this to get O'grady to confess. He would have happily played along acting like it had never happened if this didn't come out. It's also sad that these results have been known since around 2005 but they've just been sitting on them.

I was actually expecting and a bit surprised Jens Voigt wasn't named.

Voigt wore the polka dot jersey in 1998 but this jersey wearer wasn't tested, only the stage winner, yellow jersey and two random selections. As Alex has already mentioned, not all riders of the 1998 TdF were tested and of those tested not all samples were re-tested in 2004. Moreover, in some cases the samples had degraded to make re-testing not reliable (rumoured the case for Chris Boardman).

The 2nd Womble wrote:My thoughts?......THANKYOU Cadel. Please lead the way for the next generation. Winning means showtime to us. Coming midfield and having sweated blood for a result means everything!"......

i dont care much about the others, but Cadel has shown how races are won cleanly. By fighting for avery second of time and never giving up. I will never forget his comeback on alpe d'huez after all those mechanicals.....

A bit of a shock to those who championed O'Grady for so long. Do people now believe that he has not used it (or any other forms of PED) since? Let's just face it, it was a time of dope vs dope. Morality within the professional league just isn't worth discussing.

I shared a room for two weeks with a lovely Italian chap, a few years younger than me... He was good, good enough to do the baby giro, 4 times Tuscan champ and Italian age group champ... He rode as a stagiare for a big Italian team, but when he realized "what was required" to go fully pro he pulled the pin and gave up.

toolonglegs wrote: He rode as a stagiare for a big Italian team, but when he realized "what was required" to go fully pro he pulled the pin and gave up.

These are guys Tyler Hamilton felt sorry for. Those too honest to be team players.

No doubt guys like this are the victims of doping & it is appropriate for people to acknowledge that. But lets get a little bit real here - it sits very poorly with me for a person such as Hamilton who was one of the perpetrators of doping fraud to now say that he feels sorry for his own victims. Had he been honest when caught in 2004 instead of making BS excuses about a dead twin, would the whole sorry saga have dragged on for another 8 years ?

toolonglegs wrote:I shared a room for two weeks with a lovely Italian chap, a few years younger than me... He was good, good enough to do the baby giro, 4 times Tuscan champ and Italian age group champ... He rode as a stagiare for a big Italian team, but when he realized "what was required" to go fully pro he pulled the pin and gave up.

No surprise. Wise of him to know what's worth his life and love. Hard core "pro" just isn't for every one. With money and pain involved, human gets into all kinds of creative schemes.

toolonglegs wrote: He rode as a stagiare for a big Italian team, but when he realized "what was required" to go fully pro he pulled the pin and gave up.

These are guys Tyler Hamilton felt sorry for. Those too honest to be team players.

No doubt guys like this are the victims of doping & it is appropriate for people to acknowledge that. But lets get a little bit real here - it sits very poorly with me for a person such as Hamilton who was one of the perpetrators of doping fraud to now say that he feels sorry for his own victims. Had he been honest when caught in 2004 instead of making BS excuses about a dead twin, would the whole sorry saga have dragged on for another 8 years ?

sogood wrote:In comparison, what's happening on the pro-MTB side of things? Hasn't been as big as on the road side. Are they "cleaner"?

i have no specific info, but having read books by Hamilton and Millar, they are clear that the oxygenating(?) enhancing doping techniques, which are where the real gains are, are most beneficial in aiding recovery in long events - e.g. 3 week tours.

MTB at the top level is mostly raced over 2 hours or so. Millar claimed that it was possible to beat EPO-fuelled riders in shorter events, but not in the 3rd week of a grand tour.

so i'd guess this is why MTB is likely cleaner - rather than that they are a nicer bunch of blokes.

sogood wrote:In comparison, what's happening on the pro-MTB side of things? Hasn't been as big as on the road side. Are they "cleaner"?

i have no specific info, but having read books by Hamilton and Millar, they are clear that the oxygenating(?) enhancing doping techniques, which are where the real gains are, are most beneficial in aiding recovery in long events - e.g. 3 week tours.

MTB at the top level is mostly raced over 2 hours or so. Millar claimed that it was possible to beat EPO-fuelled riders in shorter events, but not in the 3rd week of a grand tour.

so i'd guess this is why MTB is likely cleaner - rather than that they are a nicer bunch of blokes.

Don't kid yourself... EPO / Blood Doping will help you win a marathon just like it will help you win a two hour world cup... male or female!.

UCI: "That's in the past, cycling is clean NOW, though!"*insert new doping admission*UCI: "That's in the past, cycling is clean _NOW_, though!"*rinse**repeat*

Armstrong & these other doping admissions made this year's TDF very hard to watch, especially with one person clearly ahead of rest. I still can't help but feel Froome was suspicious, even if all data currently available says nothing is out of place, and it's all just ruining the enjoyment.

singlespeedscott wrote:As stated by others, I think very few pro cyclists at the top level in the 80's, 90's and 00's didn't dope.

And with these people being so willing to lie unflinchingly and care-free to our faces, what's to say as the years progress this won't one day extend into the 10's as well? The 00's was meant to be a new clean generation. We've been saying "that was 10 years ago, it's different now" for well over 10 years now.

I _was_ going to make an effort to follow more races for the next 12 months, but with the constant trickle of new doping admissions, at this rate I probably won't even bother watching next year's TDF.

It was actually easier to watch back then, when the peloton doped en mass. The winner will still be the stronger rider. Now, only the very few on the big dollar technology cutting edge may gain that advantage.

I try and keep a sense of proportion. I don't condone the use of drugs in any sport, but firstly, it was in 1998, when circumstances of testing were different. Secondly, I'll be prepared to give Stewie the presumption of innocence when he says he didn't do it again.

But more I look at what he DIDN'T do. He DIDN'T bribe other riders so he could win millions of dollar in bonus payments from an insurance company.

The problem stems from the expectations the "sports lovers" of this (and other) countries places on its stars. If they don't do well ... one only has to look at the cricketers who are currently being heaped with abuse by all and sundry for their failures, and how quickly the mob turns like a black snake.

Luckily I'm not a cricket fan, and never have been, so their failure doesn't worry me. But the reaction of the public should be a source of shame.

A sense of proportion please.

Joe

To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracyBertrand RussellMany people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.

That and the fact that over 90% of all the resources used for international doping control & biopassport in cycling is spent on professional men's road racing (world tour and pro continental), with all the balance spread amongst other cycling categories (track, BMX, cyclocross, MTB, XC and women).

sogood wrote:It was actually easier to watch back then, when the peloton doped en mass. The winner will still be the stronger rider. Now, only the very few on the big dollar technology cutting edge may gain that advantage.

sogood wrote:It was actually easier to watch back then, when the peloton doped en mass. The winner will still be the stronger rider. Now, only the very few on the big dollar technology cutting edge may gain that advantage.

The winner back then was the best responder to the best doping.

i know people will disagree with me, but the winner now is arguably the person with the best genetic attributes. is that really any better? doping is bad as it's dangerous to riders' health, but i'm unconvinced for reasons beyond that.

Joeblake wrote:I try and keep a sense of proportion. I don't condone the use of drugs in any sport, but firstly, it was in 1998, when circumstances of testing were different. Secondly, I'll be prepared to give Stewie the presumption of innocence when he says he didn't do it again.

Yeah, except for the fact that his claimed one and only use of EPO was before the Tour, and he said "smashed them" when the Festina Affair broke (on 15 July Festina team hotel searched and 2 officials were taken into police custody) but his EPO positive was detected from a sample provided at the end of the second week of the Tour (26 July). Detection time is 2-3 days after stopping use.

sogood wrote:It was actually easier to watch back then, when the peloton doped en mass. The winner will still be the stronger rider. Now, only the very few on the big dollar technology cutting edge may gain that advantage.

The winner back then was the best responder to the best doping.

i know people will disagree with me, but the winner now is arguably the person with the best genetic attributes. is that really any better? doping is bad as it's dangerous to riders' health, but i'm unconvinced for reasons beyond that.

Yes, it is better.

Doping involves more than just health and safety. It also involves corruption of the sport at many levels.

Joeblake wrote:I try and keep a sense of proportion. I don't condone the use of drugs in any sport, but firstly, it was in 1998, when circumstances of testing were different. Secondly, I'll be prepared to give Stewie the presumption of innocence when he says he didn't do it again.

Yeah, except for the fact that his claimed one and only use of EPO was before the Tour, and he said "smashed them" when the Festina Affair broke (on 15 July Festina team hotel searched and 2 officials were taken into police custody) but his EPO positive was detected from a sample provided at the end of the second week of the Tour (26 July). Detection time is 2-3 days after stopping use.

So his first lie is already revealed?... "taking them before the tour", should now read "taking them before and during the tour as well"... .

That and the fact that he "needed" to take drugs in his 2nd tour to keep up, but after he smashed them ( the drugs ) in 1998 he seemed to have a pretty good career for someone clean in an obviously very doped up peloton.